| Revision as of 11:47, 10 May 2009 edit92.2.6.126 (talk) →The Daily Telegraph reports← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:53, 10 May 2009 edit undoSpiritofsussex (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,934 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Current|date=May 2009}} | {{Current|date=May 2009}} | ||
| The '''MPs' Expenses controversies''' is an ongoing controversy in ] regarding the disclosure and use of Members of Parliament's expenses. | |||
| ⚫ | The |
||
| Freedom Of Information: MPs reach end of road in battle over secret expenses|publisher=The Independent|author=Robert Verkaik|date=2008-05-23|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> A motion to exempt parliament from aspects of the Freedom of Information Act was finally dropped on 21 January 2009,<ref name="telegraph timeline"/> and details of all MPs expenses claims were due to be published on 1 July. However ] acquired detailed information, which had supposedly been touted around various newspapers, and started publishing details on 8 May. The Telegraph justified the use of this material, as it contended that the information due to be released would have omitted key information about MPs switching their second-home nominations.<ref name="bbc1">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7840678.stm|title=Q&A: MPs' expenses|publisher=The BBC|date=2008-05-08|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> | |||
| The controversy can be traced back to January 2005, when journalist ] made a request under the ] for the release of details of MPs' expenses claims. A long legal battle followed where MPs attempted to exclude themselves from the Freedom of Infomation (FOI) Act, which resulted in the ] ruling that expenses claims should be revealed. The House of Commons authorities announced that full publication of expenses would be made on 1 July 2009, however before this could happen, the ] newspaper obtained a full copy of the expenses record, publishing them in daily installments from 8 May 2009. | |||
| In March 2008, the ] was released, which gave guidelines on what MPs could claim for, based on prices in department store ]. Throughout the ongoing legal battles regarding the release of information, there have been a variety of exposes regarding individual MP's expenses claims. ] employed and paid his son over £40,000 whilst he was at university. ] paid her nanny for two years out of her staffing allowance. ] designated her main residence her sister's house in order to claim expenses on her constituency home, and it also emerged that she had claimed for pornographic films watched by her husband, ].<ref name="telegraph timeline"/> | |||
| ==Legal Battle over Release of Information== | ==Legal Battle over Release of Information== | ||
| In January 2005, the ] came into force, allowing members of the public to request disclosure of information from public bodies. One such request was made by journalist and freedom of information campaigner ], who asked for details of the expenses claimed by certain MPs to be released,<ref name="bbc5">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233560.stm|title=Expenses details 'intrude' on MPs|publisher=The BBC|date=2008-02-07|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> a request which eventually led to the ] ordering the release of some information on 15 June 2007.<ref name="guardian timeline">{{cite news|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/07/houseofcommons1|title=Timeline: MPs' expenses|publisher=The Guardian|author=Anil Dawar|date=2008-05-07|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> Members of Parliament objected to this order, and had the previous month voted in favor of the ] which sought to exempt them from the original FOI act. The amendment bill was ultimately withdrawn prior to second reading in the ] as no peers were willing to sponsor it.<ref></ref><ref name="telegraph timeline">{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5294350/Expenses-How-MPs-expenses-became-a-hot-topic.html|title=Expenses: How MP's expenses became a hot topic|publisher=The Daily Telegraph|date=2009-05-08|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> | |||
| ==Controversy regarding Expenses Claims== | |||
| ⚫ | The battle for the release of the information was referred to a Freedom of Information Tribunal who, in Februrary 2008, ruled that parliament had to release information on 14 MPs.<ref name="bbc6">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7265744.stm|title='Lax' MP expenses rules condemned|publisher=The BBC|date=2008-02-26|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> However this decision was subsequently appealed against at the last minute, once again halting the release of information.<ref name="ind2">{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-disclosure-battle-headed-for-high-court-800321.html|title=Expenses disclosure battle headed for High Court|publisher=The Independent|author=Daniel Bentley|date=2008-03-25|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref><ref name="bbc4">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7312012.stm|title=Bid to block MP expenses details|publisher=The BBC|date=2008-03-25|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> The appeal saw the fight move to the High Court, who ruled on 16 May 2008 that the information requested on expenses should be released, a decision which the parliamentary authorities chose not to appeal. As such, the requested details were made public on 23 May 2008.<ref name="ind1">{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/freedom-of-information-mps-reach-end-of-road-in-battle-over-secret-expenses-832819.html|title= | ||
| Freedom Of Information: MPs reach end of road in battle over secret expenses|publisher=The Independent|author=Robert Verkaik|date=2008-05-23|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> | |||
| Eight months later, in January 2009, the ], ], tabled a motion which would exempt members' expenses from the FoI Act, stopping any further disclosure of information.<ref></ref> Labour MPs were placed under a ] in order to force the motion through the Commons. However, opposition parties stated they would vote against the proposals, and large scale public opposition emerged, headed by an online campaign by ].<ref></ref> Harman ultimately dropped the motion on 21 January 2009, allowing the Commons authorities to announce that full details of all MP's expenses will be published on 1 July 2008.<ref name="telegraph timeline" /> | |||
| ==Pre-Publication Controversies== | |||
| Throughout the long legal battle, and prior to the offical publication of information in July 2009, there was a variety of exposés regarding the controversial ''John Lewis List'' and individual MPs' expenses claims.<ref name="telegraph timeline"/> | |||
| ===John Lewis List=== | ===John Lewis List=== | ||
| In March 2008, the ] was released, which gave guidelines on what MPs could claim for, based on prices in department store ]. | |||
| ===Derek Conway=== | ===Derek Conway=== | ||
| ], the then ] MP for ], was found to have employed his son, Frederick, as a part-time research assistant in his parliamentary office between 2004 and 2007, with an annual salary of £10,000 a year, despite Frederick being a full time undergraduate student at the ].<ref name=firstreport></ref> This arrangement was revealed by '']'' on 27 May 2007, an article which prompted a complaint to the ], who in turn referred the matter to the ] ]. | ], the then ] MP for ], was found to have employed his son, Frederick, as a part-time research assistant in his parliamentary office between 2004 and 2007, with an annual salary of £10,000 a year, despite Frederick being a full time undergraduate student at the ].<ref name=firstreport></ref> This arrangement was revealed by '']'' on 27 May 2007, an article which prompted a complaint to the ], who in turn referred the matter to the ] ]. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 57: | ||
| ===Geoff Hoon=== | ===Geoff Hoon=== | ||
| ===Alistair Darling=== | ===Alistair Darling=== | ||
| ==The Daily Telegraph reports== | ==The Daily Telegraph reports== | ||
| In May 2008, two months prior to the official disclosure of full expenses claims, the Daily Telegraph newspaper announced that it had obtained a full copy of all MPs expenses claims, and began publishing them in installments on 8 May 2009. Reports suggested that the information the Telegraph had obtained had supposedly been touted around various other newspapers, with the Telegraph justifying the publication of the material because it contended that the official information due to be released would have omitted key information about MPs switching their second-home nominations.<ref name="bbc1">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7840678.stm|title=Q&A: MPs' expenses|publisher=The BBC|date=2008-05-08|accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> Shortly after the publication of the leaked information, the House of Commons authorities asked the ] to investigate the leak, a request that the police are "considering".<ref name="bbc1" /> | |||
| From 8 May 2009, ] began running a series of exclusive reports on MPs' expenses claims, beginning with several members of the cabinet. MPs caught up in the controversy included ] (who paid his brother more than £6000 for cleaning expenses, and who submitted a claim for a repair bill twice), ] (several claims, including that she claimed second home expenses on a London flat but avoided paying capital gains tax on its sale by declaring to HM Revenue and Customs that it was her main residence), ] (who was accused of 'flipping' the second-home designation four times in four years to claim for both his family home in Edinburgh, and buy and furnish a London flat), ] (who claimed for adding mock-tudor neams to the front of his home, and who claimed for a new toilet seat twice in one year), ] (who allegedly claimed for gardening expenses, and claimed nearly £30,000 for repairs, refurbishment, and redecoration for his family home), ] (who admitted claiming full council tax payments on expenses, but was paying only a 50% rate on council tax), ] (who has denied that he claimed ladies' clothing, comics, and nappies on expenses), ] (who allegedly claimed second home expenses on a flat owned by his partner and where he lived rent-free), ] (who admitted claiming £25,000 in expenses for security patrols at her Soho home]], and ] (who allegedly claimed more than £9000 for gardening). | |||
| ===Day 1: The Cabinet=== | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 11:53, 10 May 2009
 | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The MPs' Expenses controversies is an ongoing controversy in British politics regarding the disclosure and use of Members of Parliament's expenses.
The controversy can be traced back to January 2005, when journalist Heather Brooke made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the release of details of MPs' expenses claims. A long legal battle followed where MPs attempted to exclude themselves from the Freedom of Infomation (FOI) Act, which resulted in the High Court ruling that expenses claims should be revealed. The House of Commons authorities announced that full publication of expenses would be made on 1 July 2009, however before this could happen, the Daily Telegraph newspaper obtained a full copy of the expenses record, publishing them in daily installments from 8 May 2009.
Legal Battle over Release of Information
In January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force, allowing members of the public to request disclosure of information from public bodies. One such request was made by journalist and freedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke, who asked for details of the expenses claimed by certain MPs to be released, a request which eventually led to the Information Commissioner ordering the release of some information on 15 June 2007. Members of Parliament objected to this order, and had the previous month voted in favor of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill which sought to exempt them from the original FOI act. The amendment bill was ultimately withdrawn prior to second reading in the House of Lords as no peers were willing to sponsor it.
The battle for the release of the information was referred to a Freedom of Information Tribunal who, in Februrary 2008, ruled that parliament had to release information on 14 MPs. However this decision was subsequently appealed against at the last minute, once again halting the release of information. The appeal saw the fight move to the High Court, who ruled on 16 May 2008 that the information requested on expenses should be released, a decision which the parliamentary authorities chose not to appeal. As such, the requested details were made public on 23 May 2008.
Eight months later, in January 2009, the Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, tabled a motion which would exempt members' expenses from the FoI Act, stopping any further disclosure of information. Labour MPs were placed under a three line whip in order to force the motion through the Commons. However, opposition parties stated they would vote against the proposals, and large scale public opposition emerged, headed by an online campaign by mySociety. Harman ultimately dropped the motion on 21 January 2009, allowing the Commons authorities to announce that full details of all MP's expenses will be published on 1 July 2008.
Pre-Publication Controversies
Throughout the long legal battle, and prior to the offical publication of information in July 2009, there was a variety of exposés regarding the controversial John Lewis List and individual MPs' expenses claims.
John Lewis List
In March 2008, the John Lewis List was released, which gave guidelines on what MPs could claim for, based on prices in department store John Lewis.
Derek Conway
Derek Conway, the then Conservative MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, was found to have employed his son, Frederick, as a part-time research assistant in his parliamentary office between 2004 and 2007, with an annual salary of £10,000 a year, despite Frederick being a full time undergraduate student at the University of Newcastle. This arrangement was revealed by The Sunday Times on 27 May 2007, an article which prompted a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who in turn referred the matter to the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee.
The committee launched an investigation into the matter as a whole, and reported to the House on 28 January 2008. On the same day, Conway apologised on the floor of the Commons, stating that he accepting the report's criticisms "in full". The report's main finding was that there was "no record" of Frederick ever doing any substantive work for Conway, and that the salary he was paid was too high. The committee ordered Conway to repay £13,000 of the money Frederick had been paid, and recommended that Conway should be suspended from the Commons for 10 sitting days. These recommendations was approved, in their entirety, by the House of Commons on 31 January 2008.
At the time of Conway's suspenion, the Labour MP John Mann announced that he would be making a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over Conway's employment of his other son, Henry, in a similar capacity to Frederick. Shortly after Conway's suspension and the second allegation being made, the Conservative leader, David Cameron, withdrew the party whip from Conway, effectively leaving him sitting as an Independent MP. Conway subsequently announced that he would not be standing for re-election at the next general election.
In January 2009, exactly a year after the first report, the Committee on Standards and Privileges published a further report, specifically in relation to Conway's employment of his other son, Henry Conway. The committee found that Henry had been employed immediatly prior to Frederick and, similarly, had been studying as a full time undergraduate at the time of his employment. The committee reported that, like the previous case, there was no "hard evidence" of Henry's employment, but also stated that
"it would be unfair to conclude that Henry Conway did not undertake sufficient work to fulfil the terms of his contract of employment"
The committee ordered Conway to repay £3,758 in overpayments to his son, and to also write a letter of apology to the committee's chairman, Sir George Young. Once again, Conway apologised "without qualification" to the Commons.
Caroline Spelman
Caroline Spelman, the then Chairman of the Conservative Party, became embroiled in the "nannygate" saga on 6 June 2008 when the BBC's Newsnight programme suggested she had paid for her nanny out of parliamentary expenses during her early years in Parliament, namely 1997 and 1998. Spelman issued a statement to Newsnight stating that the nanny in question, Tina Haynes, was also Spelman's constituency secretary, a claim agreed by Conservative Central Office. Immediately after the revelations were made public, the nanny told Newsnight that she only took the odd phone message or posted documents when needed. In the following days, however, Haynes stated that her work had, in fact, been on a more formal basis, providing constituency secretarial work when Spelman's children were at school.
In an attempt to resolve the situation and clear her name, Spelman herself asked John Lyons, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to investigate the payments to Haynes. However, the commissioner himself suggested that an investigation dating back seven years would be exceptional, especially on a self-referral.Despite this, the commissioner announced on 17 June that he would launch a formal investigation into the saga.
During the commissioner's investigation, Newsnight revealed that nine years previous, Spelman's parliamentary secretary, Sally Hammond, had raised concerns over the "nannygate" payments with the leadership of the Conservative party. In 1998, Hammond informed Peter Ainsworth, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, who in turn referred the matter to the then Opposition Chief Whip, James Arbuthnot, who investigated and told Spelman to stop paying the Haynes out of parliamentary expenses immediately.
In March 2009, the Committee for Standards and Privileges published their final report into matter, which ruled that Spelman had inadvertently "misapplied part of parliamentary allowances". However, both the Committee and the Commissioner noted that Spelman was, at the time, one of many new member who had taken their seats following the 1997 general election, and was therefore not fully aware of the rules governing the use of purpose of the parliamentary allownaces. The committee recommended that Spelman should repay £9,600.
Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper
In September 2007, the married Cabinet couple, Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and Yvette Cooper, then the Housing Minister, were accused of exploiting the Commons' allowances system in order to pay for a £655,000 house in Stoke Newington, North London.
The couple subsequently declared this to be their second home, despite spending most of their time in London in order to fulfill their ministerial responsibilities and their children attending London schools. The declaration of the Stoke Newington property as their second home meant that they became eligible for a reported Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) of £44,000 a year to cover the property's £438,000 mortgage.
The Conservative MP Malcolm Moss made a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who agreed to launch an investigation into the matter. The commissioner ultimately found that the couple had acted in accordance with parliamentary rules and as such dismissed the complaint against them. The Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed with the Commissioner's dismissal of the complaint.
Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton
Sir Nicholas and Lady Ann Winterton, the married backbench Conservative MPs, were accused of claiming back mortgage interest through the Additional Cost Allowance (ACA) on a flat they owned in London, despite having completed payment of the mortgage itself. It was further alleged that the pair had subsequently tranferred the ownership of the flat to a trust and then claimed £21,600 a year in rent for the flat.
A complaint was made about this arrangement by two members of the public to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who in turn launched an investigation. The commissioner found that a change in the allowances rules in 2003 appeared to complicate matters as it may have placed the Wintertons' arrangement outside of the rules, and ruled it was "unfortunate" that the couple never reassessed their situation following the change in rules. The commissioner also ruled that a further change to allowance rules in 2006 meant that there was a clear breach of the rules, but noted that the Wintertons would not have received any additional public funds for their arrangement than they would have if they had resided in a different property under more acceptable arrangements. It was also noted that the Wintertons had never attempted to conceal the arrangement. The Committee on Standards and Privileges agreed with the Commissioner's report and ruled that the payment of the Additional Costs Allowance to the Wintertons should be stopped. Notably however, they did not order the Wintertons to repay any money they had previously claimed.
In a separate debate, the Wintertons are two of only six Conservative MPs who have refused to disclose their full expenses claims, despite orders to do so by party leader, David Cameron.
Jacqui Smith
Geoff Hoon
Alistair Darling
The Daily Telegraph reports
In May 2008, two months prior to the official disclosure of full expenses claims, the Daily Telegraph newspaper announced that it had obtained a full copy of all MPs expenses claims, and began publishing them in installments on 8 May 2009. Reports suggested that the information the Telegraph had obtained had supposedly been touted around various other newspapers, with the Telegraph justifying the publication of the material because it contended that the official information due to be released would have omitted key information about MPs switching their second-home nominations. Shortly after the publication of the leaked information, the House of Commons authorities asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate the leak, a request that the police are "considering".
Day 1: The Cabinet
References
- "Expenses details 'intrude' on MPs". The BBC. 2008-02-07. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- Anil Dawar (2008-05-07). "Timeline: MPs' expenses". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- The Guardian - Lack of Lords sponsor wrecks plan to exempt MPs from FoI Act
- ^ "Expenses: How MP's expenses became a hot topic". The Daily Telegraph. 2009-05-08. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- "'Lax' MP expenses rules condemned". The BBC. 2008-02-26. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- Daniel Bentley (2008-03-25). "Expenses disclosure battle headed for High Court". The Independent. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- "Bid to block MP expenses details". The BBC. 2008-03-25. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- Robert Verkaik (2008-05-23). "Freedom Of Information: MPs reach end of road in battle over secret expenses". The Independent. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- Press Gazette - FoI campaigners condemn MPs' bid to hide expenses
- mySociety
- ^ House of Commons Standards and Privilegs Report: Conduct of Mr Derek Conway (2008)
- Hansard - 28 January 2008
- Hansard - 31 January 2008
- ^ BBC News - Tory whip withdrawn from Conway
- Daily Telegraph - Derek Conway to stand down at election
- ^ House of Commons Standards and Privileges Report: Conduct of Mr Derek Conway (2009)
- Hansard - 2 February 2009
- BBC News - MP Conway apologises for payments
- BBC News - Tory MP paid nanny from expenses
- BBC News - Tory MP paid nanny from expenses
- BBC News - MP's nanny 'did secretarial work'
- BBC News - Watchdog 'considering' nanny case
- BBC News - Spelman facing expenses inquiry
- BBC News - MPs call for Spelman to be sacked
- Committee on Standards and Privileges Report: Mrs Caroline Spelman
- Daily Mail - Cabinet husband and wife cash in on two homes loophole
- Daily Telegraph - Ed Balls claims £27,000 subsidy for 2nd home
- Daily Mail - Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper face sleaze watchdog probe over using expenses to pay their mortgage
- ^ Committee on Standards and Privileges Report: Mr Ed Balls & Mrs Yvette Cooper
- Daily Telegraph - Conservative MPs Sir Nicholas and Ann Winterton broke Commons expenses rules
- ^ Committee on Standards and Privileges: Sir Nicholas and Lady Winterton
- Daily Mail - Tory couple who broke expenses rules KEEP cash
- Daily Telegraph - Tory MP Nicholas Winterton accuses David Cameron's mafia of trying to force him out
- ^ "Q&A: MPs' expenses". The BBC. 2008-05-08. Retrieved 2009-05-08.